Cantabrians appear more likely to vote Green than people anywhere else in the country, a new poll suggests.

Data from the stuff.co.nz/Ipsos political poll shows the Green Party gained 8.8 percentage points, according to surveys done at the start of this month, putting the party on 21.2 per cent support in Canterbury against a national average of 11.3 per cent. …

Labour lost traction in Canterbury for the second month in a row, with the latest data putting it on 14.2 per cent, down 10 percentage points. Last month, Labour lost 3 percentage points while National gained the same amount. National is polling at just over 55 per cent – down 4 percentage points from July – of the Canterbury party vote. …

Right-wing blogger and commentator David Farrar said the Greens and Labour had been competing for the same votes.

At a regional level, the data had a higher margin of error so to “say Canterbury is more Green . . . will require them to stay at that level for another month or so,” Farrar said.

Only 108 people in the poll were from Canterbury. That is a 9.4% margin of error

Greens went from 12.3% to 21.2%. There is a 94.7% chance their vote actually lifted.

Labour went from 17.2% to 14.2%. There is a 71.1% chance their vote actually dropped.

There is an 89.1% chance that the Greens are actually polling higher than Labour in Canterbury.

So none of these are at 95% confidence, but they are more likely than not by some distance.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Monday, August 18th, 2014 at 6:04 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

22 Responses to “Greens and Labour in Canterbury”

1/ That Cantabrians do recognise what Cantral Govt has provided even though local govt is befuddled. CERA (The Govt) has provided leadership and direction not just idealogically driven and socially sweet(green) themes.

2/ There is still plenty of “blind” voters who want bikes and walkways who don’t realise what a handbrake these ideals are on growth (which would get the battlers ahead),.The battlers in Cantabury have realised they are getting ahead under National as the other voters have ditched Labour for Greens. In other words the left has become more entrenched actually.

It is interesting watching the 5 headed Hydra of the left canabilising each others contituencies, and Canterbury appears to be no exception.
Mana/Krimnet pillage the child poverty placards from the watermelons and entice the glue-sniffing class away from the Greens by holding obscenity laden party parties.
The Greens provide the traditional lefty Labour voters a reason to desert the gender apologist by coming up with a Tax the rich scheme.
Labour tries to shore up it’s shrinking electoral base by a shamelss raid on NZF voters, promising free doctors visits to oldies and a promise to take the “ming” back out of farming.
And NZF – well pehaps they think a bit of old fashion racism, well ingratiate them with a certain collector of Nazi regalia, and help there campaign funding cisis.

Perhaps long term Labour supporters are parking their votes Green for polls in the hope Labour will get purged by a large gaggle-clearing loss. If that we’re true I wonder whether well see many Labour voters simply stay in bed on Election Day.
“This hurts me more than it hurts you.”
It will be interesting to see if there is a Kelvin Davis faction ready to rise after this zombie apocalypse.

I remember in the last couple of years a KB poster writing that he or she suspected that a certain number of Remuera ‘houswifes’ secretly voted Greens potentially because of the thought that it favoured the environment in some way. Perhaps some in Canterbury, because of the tough time they’ve had, are simply sick of 2 bitter enemies trying to ‘out dirt’ each other. Nothing like an upheaval or crisis for opening the mind to a new awareness that the ‘same old, same old’ is not always that appealing, that could explain the drop off for Labour – eventually that may be the result for both parties as people get sick of playing the person and not the ball. Rightly or wrongly Aucklanders are probably justifiably considered to be wankers that don’t know how to work by those in the South, add in Slater’s comments about coasters and Canterbarians as reasons for such thoughts to be justified.

Well we have a so called “Green Party” full of psycophathic individuals.Take Nicky Hager,a well know email thief along with Russel Norman sneaking around the crook Schmidz/Dotcons rented mansion plotting the downfall of a very successful National Government,whatever it takes, fact or fiction or mostly lies.Now they want to be called Robbing Hood Party of NZ.We have Materilistic Meteria dressed like money was no object ,yet bleating for so called poverty people.She looks like, as they say part of the Robbing Party.Thinks she is a reincarnation of Friar Tuck.The Australian commie Russel Norman, the Nicky Hager look a like, will go well spinning fantasies,just like Hager.They are so desperate for power ,promise everything **** the consequences for the country of NZ.

1. There is much anger in Christchurch still, ferocious anger
2. Most of us who could escape did so
3. Christchurch is a low income City
4. There are rogue polls and there are rouge polls, this is a rouge rogue poll

Come on OneTrack the Greens have already banned their wood burners another reason why people have tossed out Labour /Greens.

Imagine how you’d feel if the Commie Greenpeace Canterbury Regional Council(fortunately taken over by Central Govt) who lurch around town in Christchurch looking for belching chimneys that they can prosecute. Who cares about the battlers in side wanting to keep their families warm.

Another reason why Greenies dont care about the real welfare of those in need – They only care if it fits their Communist/Socialist ideals.

lolitasbrother (548 comments) says:
August 18th, 2014 at 8:51 am
1. There is much anger in Christchurch still, ferocious anger
2. Most of us who could escape did so
3. Christchurch is a low income City
4. There are rogue polls and there are rouge polls, this is a rouge rogue poll

The “bureaucratic brutalization” many have experienced in Christchurch, since the time of the first earthquake events 4 September 2010, has “cured” many of any notions they may have had about the competence of public bureaucracies … Local Government in particular.

A The Press poll mid 2013 also found Labour was in serious trouble in Christchurch.

I have covered the issue extensively over the years within CHRISTCHURCH: THE WAY FORWARD and the hyperlinked earlier articles …

The core problem is the failed Christchurch City Council … since the time of the forced Local Government amalgamation in 1989.

Thankfully Mayor Lianne Dalziel with new Chief Executive Dr Karleen Edwards are leading in starting to unwind us out of the mess.

While understandably many on the Left in Christchurch have taken the easy option of moving their support to The Greens, this is likely pretty flaky support. The Greens policies need to be thoroughly scrutinised in the public arena … something that has not happened to date.

It is remarkable how the Lefts support in Christchurch has disintegrated. It was long referred to as “The Peoples Republic of Christchurch”. No longer though … following four long years of bureaucratic brutalization.

New Zealanders generally need to examine more closely the seismic political shifts in Christchurch … and the reasons why. There are big lessons here.

“For this city to best recover from its seismic nightmare, the process of decision- making needs to be inverted to truly empower communities. Such a radical change is very difficult to accept for anyone – of any political persuasion – who happens to be in power. “

“To date, the required response is tokenistic. A top-down command and control system may be appropriate in the days after a disaster but not in a recovery which will take years. Among the ultimate victims will be those who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to true community engagement. Just look at the Christchurch City Council.”

That was a funny comment from Winston. The two “Wongs” I thought of were Justice Minister Judith Collins and her husband David Wong-Tung, and the news they have been in. And I am just imagining an extension of the situation where it may help to know Chinese language to get a job in New Zealand. Nearly 3 times of the number of people in the world speak Mandarin as English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers. So it’s really 3 Wongs to one “White” – if you are thinking of preserving culture as we try for Maori language. There is a difference between that and racism. Maori did better against colinisers than some other colonies’ indigenous people. Is it going to be, “I need a job but I can only speak English?” We still have a situation here where though our economy has a lot less strength than China, our people on average may have a somewhat better deal than Chinese. If we merge can we hold on to something that can lift them? Isn’t that one possible thought about Peters’ quip?

When ECAN was changing the Regional Policy Statement to agree with the collective Mayors’ Greater Christchurch Urban Density Strategy I inquired about whether thoughts about future technology and values were being taken into account. The answer was no.

Densification is supposed to bring workers close to their employment and recreation. Gardening has been a more important recreation than rugby by a long way. The main recreation near dense urban settlements will be pubs. If people don’t get caught into alcoholism they may after a few months feel like getting to some creative physical recreation daily. They used to have it in the garden, talking over the back fence, too. Now there may not be enough car parks near their units to get away. If they have a car park then I don’t really see it being any more fuel/CO2 budget efficient to be near work than near recreation.

I think densification is to keep rural land cheap for dairy farms.

I would like to see allowed, subdivision into 0.2 ha sections, along existing rural roads, and not too far from them also. A two-storey house would be allowed which would not take a great amount of the productive land. City Council rules would be extended a little, not just to protect special trees, but to require them to be planted and looked after. There should be room for biodiversity stewardship. Biodiversity: a big value for the future.

Youngsters are not using cars so much, it is cellphones they buy. If they do want to travel then as the apps like http://car.ma get busy I think there will be very good ability to move around cheaply.

Besides socialising, more workers are working over the internet lines. Doctors can even do ops remotely.

Solar cells have been under $500 per kw for a long time. And graphene batteries are not far off.

Decentralised wastewater disposal can save our diminishing phosphate supplies for local trees, and stop phosphate causing toxic blooms in ocean and poisoning fish. Do our bit as we do for fluorocarbon refrigerants.

I don’t think we have to go big on infrastructure. Hugh, how important is business to infrastructure companies in your plan?
What would you say to the road between Marshland and Kaiapoi having a depth of five 0.2ha sections either side along shared drives? Possibly we would need to work on social motivation for some people to care for their properties, but I think low maintenance indigenous plants would be a lot better than simple pasture and poplars of the moment.

Decentralised living is safer in times of quakes and epidemics. There is home produce. Our economic system may need to change from the power supermarkets have over us.

How do other people see adjustment to changing work/activity needs in the centuries ahead? You know the 3D printers &c.

>Greens went from 12.3% to 21.2%. There is a 94.7% chance their vote actually lifted.

Interesting. How did you calculate this probability?

Conventional statistical significance tests can only tell you the conditional probability of observing some particular *data*, if the null hypothesis is true. (In this case, that null hypothesis could be that the true proportion of Green voters has stayed the same). So a significance test could tell us the probability of observing a change this extreme in the sample proportions, IF the null hypothesis of an unchanged population was true (this would be the 2-tailed p value). But it can’t directly tell us the probability that the true proportion has changed.

Here you seem to be making a statement about the probability that there has been a change in the true proportion of Green voters, *given the data observed*. Significance testing cannot tell you that. Bayesian data analysis can, but running the analysis is more complicated.

If you’ve conducted a Bayesian analysis, ka pai! But if you’ve based your conclusion on a conventional significance test or confidence interval, you may unfortunately be misinterpreting the output.